Given that I consider the Nobel Peace Prize (past recipients include: Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Henry Kissinger, and Yasser Arafat*) and hosting the Olympics (past recipients include: Beijing ‘08, Moscow ‘80, Berlin ‘36) to be dubious ‘honors’, I really can’t get particularly worked up over Obama winning the former and losing the latter.

*The Nobel Peace Prize is to be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work [1] for fraternity between nations, [2] for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and [3] for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”.  Given that I sincerely do not consider the latter two goals on the list admirable,I cannot take the ‘award’ too seriously.

Obama at his healthcare conference:

Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that’s out there. … The doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, ‘You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid’s tonsils out.

Now, that may be the right thing to do, but I’d rather have that doctor making those decisions just based on whether you really need your kid’s tonsils out or whether it might make more sense just to change — maybe they have allergies. Maybe they have something else that would make a difference…

Those greedy ENT specialists have responded:

We, too, are in favor of evidence-based medicine that supports quality patient care. President Obama’s statement highlights the complexity of medical decisions like this. However, the AAO-HNS is disappointed by the President’s portrayal of the decision making processes by the physicians who perform these surgeries.

• Obama says healthcare “shouldn’t be political“.
• Rich Lowry discusses why exactly Obama’s playing the Urgent Politics of Now.
• Greg Mankiw points to opposition of left-leaning Bill Gale at Brookings and Clintonite Jeff Frankel of Harvard as proof that healthcare reform has swung too far left.
• Americans now trust Obama 54%-42%.  That’s still 30 points higher than Tim Geithner’s numbers.

• No one knows where Roy Halladay’s going to end up.  My guess is Philadelphia, if he gets traded.
• Borders is trying to cash in on teen readers.
• Half-Blood Prince sells $160 million in 5 days worth of North American tickets.  And it hasn’t even hit IMAX yet.
• You should read Janet Maslin’s hillarious review of Ben Mezrich’s latest pseudofiction.
• Harvard Econ prof is also semi-pro powerlifter.

• Adam and I were discussing use and misuse Twitter, and today the WSJ suggests that companies are beginning to use Twitter effectively.
• 25% of Britons believe the moon landings (all of them) were faked.
• An Open Letter to the Obama Administration from Central and Eastern European leaders.
• In USA Today – Americans disapprove of Obama’s handling of healthcare and the economy. (52% say they call for too much expansion of government power)
• Re: Obama’s Healthcare Plan, Mickey Kaus tries to remember a time that a President effectively campaigned for an issue while in office.
• Finally, why Japan’s awesome cell phones haven’t made it overseas.

According to Drudge:

RASMUSSEN 2012 poll released at 10:30AM ET

Obama 45% Romney 45%
Obama 48% Palin 42%

UPDATE:

When Romney is the Republican nominee, he beats Obama among unaffiliated voters 48% to 41%. But when Palin is the GOP candidate, unaffiliated voters prefer Obama by a 47% to 41% margin.

Men prefer the Republican over Obama whether it’s Romney or Palin, while women like the president better in both match-ups. Palin continues to fare more poorly among women than her male rivals.

I haven’t really posted anything in a few weeks due to lack of internet, but I’m posting this from Gabor’s wireless card.

So, we have the Iranian election.  On the one hand we have Ahmadinejad, who plays as a populist demagogue, and on the other hand we have Mousavi who campaigned as a reformer despite having a long history within the Iranian governmental apparatus.  It’s pretty clear this election was stolen.  It remains to be seen what actually comes of this Green Revolution which is taking place on the streets of Tehran and the Twittersphere.  But I’m appalled by President Obama’s conduct in this entire affair.

I appreciate that American support could harm rather than help Mousavi within the anti-American elements of Iranian politics.  But Mousavi’s anti-American credentials are impeccable.  He helped overthrow the Shah.  He was a top adviser to Khatami, who – while a moderate reformer – was certainly not any sort of American puppet.  There is little risk to people thinking him an American proxy for the Middle East; certainly, students and shopkeepers flooding Tehran with protest will not imagine this to be some sort of American plot.

The belief that American support is some kind of albatross around the neck of reformers is patently ridiculous.  This belief stems from the same soft bigotry which has lead Realists to proclaim that some sorts of people can’t really have democracy.  The Iraqis didn’t have a vibrant middle class and were too ethnically divided.  The Iranians are too religious and too faithful to their Supreme Leader.  Look at what the stupid Venezuelans did by electing that madman Chavez.

The belief that cultural differences make it impossible for people to share in the common values of self-determination and popular sovereignty is laughably old.  In another time, this same logic was used to justify slavery and segregation in this country.  (It’s still used by people who eschew the notion of the melting pot in favor of a single homogenized set of values – as they continue to forget that democracy is great because people overcome their diversity.  E pluribus unum – out of many, one – can’t function without the pluribus)

The argument made by President Obama’s supporters suggests that were he to simply say “I join my counterparts in France and the Czech Republic in condemning the stolen electoin, violence against protesters, and usurpation of the popular will by the Iranian government”, the Iranian people would be simpleminded enough and stupid enough to immediately hate whatever Obama endorsed.  This raises two questions.  First, wouldn’t this ludicrous notion suggest that – in direct contradiction to Obama’s campaign suggestions – diplomacy would be completely ineffective with the Iranian people since their hatred of the US is strong enough to make them reject a candidate they’ve rallied, protested, and died in support of?  Second, didn’t the US elect Obama specifically so this wouldn’t happen?  That Obama would be able to stand up and say “I have a Muslim middle name – I feel your pain”? (or something to that effect).

Nor does stating our opinion infringe on the sovereignty of Iran.  First, a mere statement cannot infringe on a country’s sovereignty.  We have an opinion on literally everything else that Iran does, but on the issue of elections, we are silent?  It’s absurd.  Second, American principles state that sovereignty rests with the people.  The first revolution in Iran was borne of similar predilections.  This new revolution is the will of the people in opposition to a governmental tyranny that they cannot tolerate.  Supporting the Green Revolution means supporting Iranian sovereignty in the most proper sense of the word.

The ironic thing is that George W Bush would have – as President – immediately spoken out in favor of the Green Revolution.  Obama’s support – which could have far greater an impact than Bush’s – is not as forthcoming, mainly because he does not believe in the neoconservative principle of spreading Democracy.  But Obama – with his image as a change agent and reformer – could have a great effect on the Iranian political process by stating clearly and firmly the US’s support of the Green Revolution.  Remember, after September 11th, we were consoled by the sympathies not only of France and Britain, but also of Cuba and Libya.  We appreciate all support in our times of need.

Instead, he does nothing, promises to negotiate with Ahmadinejad if he succeeds in stealing the election, and looks weak on the world stage.  Obama has never indicated that he cares about the freedom of the Iranian people – George W Bush made it a regular talking point.  Obama wants – for better or for worse – to focus on domestic issues.  He wishes that this issue would just go away; it would be easier for him at a time that he’s making a big push on health care.  He just wants to work out a deal with the simplistic and despotic Ahmadinejad on the nuclear energy – it would be easier than dealing with a cagey, well-educated, and highly popular veteran politician in charge of Iran.  Many things would be easier than having to address what has the potential to either be the next Tienanmen Square or the next Velvet Revolution.

No, it is not easy to support the Green Revolution.  But it is the right thing to do.

title widely attributed to an Iranian twitter user

One has to wonder how Barack Obama’s pledge to conduct direct diplomacy with leaders of Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea is going.

Today, Hugo Chavez called him an “ignoramus”.

Yesterday, Iran “brushed aside” his youtube video.

And North Korea has decided to test Obama’s mettle.

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.
-Barack Obama

Barack Obama has lost his mind.  It seems, unfortunately, that he’s leading a large portion of the country with him.  The reason that conservatives care about the size of government is because a small government will not overreach and do colossally stupid things.  It will not infringe on the liberty of individuals.  A small government has never been an oppressive or fascist government.  A small government can always grow if the people demand it.

On the other hand, a big government will think it’s working – until it’s too late.  A big government will not shrink at the whim of the people.  The beast will not voluntarily give up its power – it must be starved.  By its very nature, it will subsume dissent.  In a crisis, it will run the risk of moving too fast and doing too much.  History has shown us that the worst types of governments are the big ones, not the small ones.

President Obama has done this country a terrible disservice.  He, along with the crazed regulators in the House, have pushed forth a 90% tax on bonuses for all employees making over $250,000/year at firms that received bailout checks.  These strings-attached are retroactive.  When JP Morgan and Bank of America received funds, they did not know that their bonuses would have been taxed.  Some are considering returning the funds in order to break free of federal regulation – but why bother?  Matt Drudge reports that Obama’s preparing to push legislation to regulate all bonuses, regardless of whether the company received bailout funds or not.

Obama has framed this as a way to curb greed.  But he is not curbing greed – he is fundamentally changing the incentives and realigning the national landscape.  Obama is not content to merely regulate the practices of the financial industry; he wants to push a salary cap on the I-Bankers and Traders who’ve contributed greatly to the financial innovation and success of American in the late 20th and early 21st century.

Why not first cap the salaries of professional athletes?  It seems ludicrous that Alex Rodriguez can make $27.5 million a year playing baseball but that a star fund manager who generates great returns for the pensions and 401ks of working class Americans will be limited to 1/100th of that.  Michelle Obama made $300,000 while working for a hospital – if she’d worked for a fraction of that, the hospital could have bought more life-saving treatment for patients.  Barack Obama makes $400,000 a year – if he worked for a fraction of that, he could put that money towards programs that work rather than his own pocket (or better yet, he could return it to the taxpayers).   President Obama also signed a $500,000 book deal right before his inauguration – if he’d signed for less, he’d have left more money in the pockets of publishing companies – which desperately need it – and a new aspiring author could have also signed on.

I don’t begrudge President Obama or his wife any of their success – but they seem to believe, like many of the super-rich who backed them, that their success had nothing to do with the system of incentives that have been cultivated by the marketplace of opportunity that America affords.  It’s a dangerous belief.

Paul Krugman laments the AIG bill:

This was bad analysis, bad policy, and terrible politics. This administration, elected on the promise of change, has already managed, in an astonishingly short time, to create the impression that it’s owned by the wheeler-dealers. And that leaves it with no ability to counter crude populism.

Obama was elected on the promise of Change.  But for some odd reason, Krugman thought that Obama wouldn’t do what he promised to do.  Obama attacked NAFTA.  Obama scapegoated profit-making enterprises (don’t you wish more companies were making a profit today, Mr. President?).  Obama made economic populism the central theme of his campaign.

Obama was the ultimate Rorschach test.  But there’s no use in crying over spilled ink.